COAST PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT

SOON COMMING OUT OF AGE.

But Asks
IS THERE AN OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE SECCESSION IN KENYAN
CONSTITUTION (2010) & IN INTERNATIONAL LAW OR IS IT A CRIME?

At the onset the Kenya government’s hard stance on proponents of self

determination from the Coast Province led to protracted violent confrontations
in the last ten or so years against members of groups it outlawed and their quasi
establishments. Equally targeted, any other Coastal person, group or
organizations championing this cause have been equally harassed and
intimidated with charges of incitement. These violent skirmishes by the law
enforcement agencies widely reported by the media resulted into serious brutal
human rights abuses, destruction of properties, arrest of persons in gatherings,
injuries even death mainly of Coastal indigenous individuals or communities
trying to exercise their constitutional right in agitating for secession. This untold
suffering of the coasterians appears was a calculated strategy by government
designed to instill extreme fear to knee jerk them upfront from exercising their
constitutional right and deny them the opportunity to pursue self determination.

It is now fair to examine this issue, its constitutional and judicial narratives
and perspectives more critically with sobriety whether or not:-
(1) Is agitation for and secession itself a crime under the Kenyan
Constitution or in International law?

(2) Is it the methods used that are criminal and those who use them or is
anybody who advocates secession committing a crime in Kenya?

Generating answers to these questions is very critical and key to debunk

the government’s narrative and sustained propaganda projecting upfront the
impression that talking or agitating for self determination or secession is a grave
crime, illegal and unconstitutional if not treasonable to the extreme. Charity
begins at home, in answering these weighty issues, it is necessary perhaps to
navigate my own court battle experiences as a victim of vicious government’s
actions as the best example and scenario in this dispensation. It is for these
same considerations that in August 2012 I formed Coast Peoples Democratic
Movement (acronym CPDM) being Executive Chairman to offer the coast people
and the country an alternative bipartisan consultative, participatory and
negotiating platform to use peaceful, lawful and civilized methods under
domestic and international law as an alternative to violence to achieve a political
solution anchored in democracy, rule of law and constitutionalism. Given the
government’s intransigency and subsequent outlawing of preceding groups MRC
in this respect the decision to form a resilient CPDM in August 2012 by no means
1
was phenomenal and not easy in view of contemporary experiences, imminent,
inherent risks, dangers, threats and consequences by sprawling government
state security agencies. To circumvent upfront the threat and prospect of the
legitimate right to self determination of the Coast people from obliteration with
the foreseeable crushing of MRC by government in 2013, to rejuvenate the
struggle’s spirit CPDM filled the void as a voice of reason to provide a home grown
strategy to validate the feasibility of self determination and offer the coastal
communities hope of continuation of the struggle - aluto continua. Civic
education to optimize our peaceful and lawful methods was CPDM’s cherished
first and critical priority, in this respect.

In August 2012 we issued a report and manifesto sent to the government

with responses received from the President, Senate and Chief Justice and the
British Government to whom it was copied. These were also copied to various
relevant offices in the government; NGO’s including the UN, AU, East African
and Commonwealth secretariats, IGAD etc. It was also sent to foreign embassies
in Nairobi, religious organizations and in the public domain through the internet.
The report outlined as far practicable the colonial history of the Coast from the
first Arabs, to the Portuguese, to the Omani Arabs rule and the transition into a
British protectorate, the reasons behind these changes and transitions. It also
explained how and why the Coast a sultanate was eventually integrated with
British colony Kenya as one country at independence without the consent or by
bypassing the Coastal communities. The report rationalized the colonial
Sultan/British agreements, and the recommendations contained in
Commissioner Robertson of 1961, the Lancaster conference and constitution,
the inherited British obligations of the coast by the Kenya government, the
Marlborough agreement of 1963 and the breaches of these by the Kenya
government after Kenya’s independence.

We tried in this report to analyze their good intentions and their legal
implications, impact and effect of these pre independence colonial agreements
as a cure of Coastal concerns after being denied their democratic right to consent
and participation in these agreements by colonial powers. It focuses on the post
independence impact and consequences of the Kenya government’s breach of
these agreements and undertakings that led to marginalization, repressive
actions and policies, denial of fundamental rights of coasterian minorities,
domination, exploitation and a quasi silent but progressive subjugation policy of
the coast after Kenya’s independence. The collective crystallization and impact
of all these factors inevitably drive this self determination initiative of the coast.

In 1989 Serbia revoked its inheritance of Kosovo’s autonomy which

remained part of Serbian province after the break of Yugoslavia. Eventually this
led to civil war that involved EU and the UN, finally the International Court of
Justice advisory ruled recognizing Kosovo’s right to unilateral secession,
eventually effected through a UN mandate. Critics have challenged this ICJ
decision for potentially promoting conflict by secessionists around the world, but
in the alternative agreed repression, exclusion and fundamental human rights
abuses etc. of Kosovars by Serbia would have been a better basis. It can

2
reasonably be argued this abrogation by Serbia of Kosovo’s autonomy and the
alternative to ICJ decision which resonates with Kenyan breached pre-
independence colonial agreements and mutilation of the Lancaster constitution
that revoked the intended autonomy of the Coast province of minorities within
an independent Kenya imposed by these pre independence legal instruments.

The Kenya government after independence mutilated the first Lancaster

constitution that guaranteed more semi autonomous executive powers to the
Coast Province abolished Coast Land, Education boards and regionalism itself
by unconstitutional means without involving parliament. Regional governments
were starved off with cash by the federal government that brought the regional
governments to their knees and eventually obliterated. Despite these obvious
unconstitutional mechanisms, breach of agreements, premeditated open
marginalization and blatant abuse of the minority rights of the Coast
communities neither the colonial power Britain nor the United Nations held the
Kenya government to account. No sooner after independence, in 1964 Kenyatta
wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations suggesting he would review
or abrogate pre-independence colonial agreements. All this gave the Kenya
government a cater Blanche opportunity of what the Coast had feared most
marginalization on a whether you like it or not basis with absolute impunity for
over fifty years after independence using state machinery. The Coast
communities were overwhelmingly excluded in the post independence powerful
Kenyan state machinery, were sparsely and disproportionately represented in
high offices, skewed development and employment in parastatal, commissions,
governance at national, provincial, and district levels including in their own
Coast region. They were left toothless, vulnerable and literally put in a socio
economic, governance and political orphanage. We then built our justification to
pursue a legal course under international law to self determination of the coast
coalescing and based on the convergence of colonial powers Britain/Sultan
culpabilities, breaches of colonial agreements by and Kenya government’s post
independence unconstitutional actions exacerbated by marginalization, to
forestall and deescalate upfront the notion from coastal minds that violence was
or is the only option to pursue self determination in this respect. We are grateful
to God that our report and manifesto achieved these objectives first convinced
coasterians our methods were feasible and viable that substantially helped
downscale volatility at the coast during the 2013 general elections beyond
expectations following a boycott threat of elections issued by MRC as reported
by the government in the media. Through the print and electronic media in
May/June 2014 the government accused me of being the new chairman of a
mutating and rebranding MRC in my home county Tana River an accusation
swiftly denied by MRC chairman through the same media. I obtained
Anticipatory Bail Pending Arrest from the High Court Malindi that prevented my
arrest upfront when I finally reported to the DCIO Garsen. On 31.07.2014 I was
charged at Garsen magistrate’s court with two counts of incitement and issuing
a false report and on 16.03.2015 a third count was added managing an
unregistered Society at Garsen. Surprisingly the MRC accusations being the
primary accusation in the media by government was not on the charge sheet.
The OCPD Garsen testified in court as a prosecution witness that the Police had

3
no charges against me for any MRC related charges upon cross examination by
my counsel. Not much can be said for now beyond this point, this case is still
going on at Garsen.
In starting to answer questions 1 and 2 in paragraph one above, Coast Peoples
Democratic Movement, myself & others as petitioners on 28.11.2014 filed High
Court (MSA) application no.73/2014 inta-alia for mandamus orders against the
Registrar of Societies and AG as respondents to register our organization as a
society after having failed to do so within the statutory time of 120 days upon
receipt of our application for registration dated 3.02.2014 sent by registered
mail. The respondents in their replying affidavit dated 27.02.2015 denied having
received our application for registration and argued by quoting verbatim from
our manifesto “…….The main objective of CPDM is to employ peaceful and legal
means to pursue separation or secession of coastal region to become an
independent state.” Based on this premise the respondents argued that,
intended secession by CPDM would be a threat to national security, will interfere
with public order and peace in the country which will infringe on the
fundamental rights of other Kenyans and sought to limit our rights as petitioners
in this respect and prayed for the outright dismissal of the petition.
The respondents fatally stated in their replying affidavit they could not approve
registration because the name Coast Democratic Movement in statutory Form A
and B and our constitution which were attached to our application did not match
that in our affidavit MJM-1. The respondents expressed willingness to consider
registration if the name and objectives of CPDM were changed not to connote a
political party and secession respectively. These distinctions could not be made
if the registrar did not receive our application as later observed by appellate
judges.
In his judgment Justice M.J.Anyara Amukule made these observations repeating
and agreeing with respondents in their replying affidavit above:-
a)That CPDM’s secessionist agenda is political falls under the Political Parties
Act, but conceded political associations could be registered under Sect.15 of the
Societies Act. The judge strongly anchored his judgment on Article 3(2) of the
constitution which states “Any attempt to form a government otherwise than in
compliance with this constitution is unlawful.” And Article 5 which defines the
territory of Kenya which states “ Kenya consist of the territory and territorial
waters comprising Kenya on the effective date, and any additional territory and
territorial waters as defined by an act of parliament” In applying the two articles
the judge made a finding in the same judgment that the boundaries of the
country may not be reduced save by an amendment of the constitution with a
mandatory of a referendum.
b) The judge made a finding that Kenya was a signatory of International
instruments addressing the right to self determination i.e. Charter of the United
Nations, International covenant on civil and political rights, the international
covenant on Economic, social and cultural rights, the African chatter of Human
and Peoples rights and the 1993 Vienna declaration were sighted by the judge.
The judge rightly found these rights should be pursued and conducted within
the law. Based on the injustices suffered by the coastal communities nearly all
these conventions are applicable in this respect.

4
To a very large extent the judge in his judgment agreed with nearly all the
respondents’ arguments in their replying affidavit but in his final judgment
despite CPDM’s efforts for registration to pursue these rights lawfully the judge
made this ruling on 18.03.2015:
HIGH COURT ORDERS.
1.I adopt and endorse the above reasoning MRC case (art.110&111 of that
judgment) reference viz verbatim summary inter alia “Applicants not entitled to
constitutional protection, are amorphous, unregistered, lack locus standi and legal
competency to bring the motion in this case.” In addition, there was firstly
no challenge (during proceedings) to the arguments by the Registrar of societies,
that he had not received the Petitioners application for registration. Secondly
the petitioners by virtue of their secessionist agenda, lack the competency to
seek the protection of the constitution of Kenya 2010 as their activities in the
present forum are illegal.
2. For those reasons, I find and hold that the Petition dated and filed on 28th
November 2014 is incompetent and is hereby dismissed with a direction that
each party bears its own cost. Hon. M.J.Anyara Emukule J.
It is very clear that we lost the High Court case not because we did not comply
or qualify as an organization to be registered as a society, but because the judge
was persuaded by the respondents arguments of our criminalities and
perceptions that our intentions, objectives and actions threatened public
order/incitement were therefore illegal and unconstitutional upfront of
registration. The respondents defence turned this civil case into a pure criminal
case and the judge applied in what he thought was his collective responsibility
by all law courts to uphold the rule of law by dismissing our civil application
based on unproven perceptions of our illegalities and criminalities upfront of
registration even though the case was a civil matter.
CPDM’s APPEAL
On 23.10.2015 through our appeal counsel Mr. Allan Nyange Sharia we filed an
appeal no.73/2015 based on nine grounds: the superior court impugned
judgment was not reasonable, fair, was biased and applied double standards in
favour of the respondents ,applied the new law selectively and incorrectly, failed
to uphold the rule of law and constitutionalism, misdirected itself into error by
rendering a meritless verdict anchored outside the law, there was no basis for
making the judgment therein and the High Court misdirected itself into error by
failing to acknowledge the evidence on record. The appeal hearing opened in
Mombasa on 9.03.2016 the respondents were unrepresented, a request to file
written submissions by our counsel was accepted by the three appellate judges.
An order was issued for all parties to make written submissions and was served
upon respondents on 30.3.2016. Our written submissions were filed on 4.5.2016
and served upon respondents on 12.05.2016, the proceedings were temporarily
put on hold on the hearing date 25.5.2016 to allow respondents to file their
submissions at the Appeal Court registry first after which the case resumed the
same morning.
Submissions by Our Counsel.
There was a beehive of brilliant arguments from our appeal counsel Mr. Allan N.
Sharia that in their replying affidavit the respondents did not deny P.O.Box
40112 Nairobi did not belong to Attorney Generals office neither did they provide

5
their correct address. (Counsel for respondents admitted in answering a question
from the bench that the address was theirs) That the registered letter and two
reminders sent by ordinary mail to the same address were not returned to the
applicants/petitioners. Our counsel submitted the Registrar of Societies and
Registrar of marriages are departments in the AG chambers any letters and
applications addressed to the AG should reach them. He further submitted the
law stipulates that any unreturned registered mail after 96 hours of posting is
deemed to have been received by the recipient and at this juncture it was about
two years. He argued Appellants were unlawfully denied registration and were
entitled to fair administration action pursuant to Article 47 of the constitution.
That the judges own finding Section 15 of the Societies Act suggests and
envisages certain political associations did not distinguish nature, type or kind
of political associations falling under Societies or Political Parties Act. That the
judge took over the role and functions of the registrar under the Societies Act
when he determined the appellant could not be registered under the Societies
Act. That in dismissing the appellants activities as illegal by virtue of their
clamour for secession of the coast, the judge referred to Article 3(2) (see above)
and that the design grated boundaries can only be reduced by an amendment of
the constitution, the judge agreed with this possibility in his judgment. Counsel
submitted there is no evidence of appellant’s illegal/criminal activities they have
only sought to regularize their activities under the law their desire to peaceful
and lawful means begin with the registration. That denied registration appellants
sought judicial intervention instead of using unorthodox means to achieve their
objectives vindicates appellants are keen on lawful means to achieve their
objectives. Counsel further submitted the law as discussed by the High Court
judge allows even where the constitution like ours is silent on secession a party
can lawfully seek separation and no law or constitutional provision bars the
appellants from seeking separation provided it is done within peaceful and lawful
means which is the core objective of the appellants. Counsel made a critical point
in submissions over a slogan many coast people have been harassed by the GK
about. Pwani Si Kenya (Coast is not Kenya) slogan is construed to mean
incitement to forcefully evict non indigenous peoples at the coast. This slogan is
an expression of unbearable marginalization felt by the coast people in many
aspects of life, just like the Turkana say they are going to Kenya when travelling
to Nairobi. It was also submitted that secession is an act of self determination
which power, in a democracy resides in the people, it is for them to determine
whether or not they wish to secede or remain. Courts are not the means of
expressing or effecting peoples democratic will. Under Articles 256 and 257 of
the constitution the people of Kenya can lawfully initiate constitutional
amendments through parliamentary or popular initiative respectively with
mandatory of a referendum, the courts have no such power/jurisdiction. The law
allows for negotiated and not unilateral or de-facto secession even where the
constitution is silent reference the own judges case Reference Re Secession of
Quebec (1998) SCR 15. The judge misapplied the law when he found that the
appellants lack the competency to seek protection of the constitution of Kenya
as their activities are illegal when they are within the law.( end of submissions)
The respondents did not bring anything new or arguments into the appeal and
based their submissions on their very original Replying Affidavit and judgment

6
in the originating petition no 73 of 2014. The respondents did not substantively
counter the submissions of the appellant’s counsel as discussed above, by and
large relied on their HC arguments. Based on our counsels submissions we won
the appeal against the government by the appellate judges judgment of
1.07.2016 delivered in Malindi whose summary is:

APPEAL JUDGMENT.
1. Section 50(1) of the Act (Societies Act cap.108) provides that any
documents……….may validly be served on a society or individual by registered
post addressed to their postal address ….section 50(2) adds such documents
shall be deemed to have reached….it is registered addressed to within 96
hrs……in the absence of non delivery the 1st respondent is deemed to have
received the application……….If these circumstances are taken into
consideration and the 1st respondents (registrar) equivocal statement regarding
receipt of the application, we think there is considerable merit in the appellants
contention that the respondents received the application for registration. We
would add that……applicants to fully exercise their freedom of association this
court will not allow the exercise and enjoyment of that freedom to be defeated on
flimsy grounds such as those advanced by the 1st respondents (registrar)
regarding artificial distinction between the office of the Attorney General and
registrar of societies………As such it cannot be easily allowed to avoid living up
to its constitutional obligations.
2. Having satisfied ourselves that the 1st respondent received the application for
registration of the 2cd appellant and was in any event been aware of that
application from the date (after Nov.2014) the petition in the High Court was
served upon him, the 1st respondent failed to consider and make a decision …on
the application……further failed to uphold the appellants right to fair
administrative action guaranteed by section 47 of the constitution.

APPEAL COURT ORDERS.

Ultimately, we find that this appeal is meritorious. We accordingly allow it, set
aside the order of the High Court dated 18th March 2015 dismissing Petition no.
73 of 2014.We substitute therefore an order directing the 1st respondent to hear
and determine the application for registration of the 2nd Appellant in accordance
with the law. The appellants will have costs of the appeal. It is so ordered.”Dated
and delivered at Malindi this 1st day of July 2016.
Hon. Justice ASIKE-MAKHANDIA,W. OUKO, K. M’INOTI JA.
RE-APPLICATION TO REGISTRAR.
Pursuant to this judgment we re-applied for registration on 25th July 2016 and
in our covering letter by registered mail we gave powerful reasons to vindicate
our registration to the registrar as a society not as s political party.
a) The objective of a political party is to win power in a general election to
form a national government. This is not CPDM’s objective to neither form
a national or an alternative government.
b) Our secessionist agenda is uniquely relevant to the coast region and it is
not feasible for CPDM to open eighteen extra offices in other counties in
addition to 6 coastal to make 24 the minimum threshold for registration
under the political parties act.
7
 c) Article 2 of the Societies Act cap.108 laws of Kenya Interpretation of
Society states inter-alia “ includes any club, company, partnership or
other association of ten or more persons, whatever their nature or object,
established in Kenya……etc”
The respondents and high court ruling allegations CPDM sought to establish a
national government unconstitutionally contrary to articles 3(2) & 5 of the
constitution were totally mischievous, misdirected and misplaced in the
circumstances. We have not received any response, will seek High Court
indulgence once again against the registrar of societies. An agonizing government
is in clear contempt of court of appeal ruling and mandamus orders to be
registered are inevitable.
Specifically article 256 (5) (a) (constitution) mandates the president to request
IEBC (Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission) to conduct a national
referendum within 90 days to approve the bill if the amendment relates to a
matter specified in article 255 (1) (b) & (c) namely to the territory and sovereignty
of Kenya respectively. Admittedly the Kenya constitution is silent on secession,
but amendments can be initiated to negotiate secession by following the rules of
procedure in art. 255 256 and 257 of the constitution of Kenya (2010). If
objectives, activities and intentions of secession were criminal or illegal and
unconstitutional as High Court found, the appellate judges were bound by
collective responsibility to uphold the rule of law by all law courts, would not
have set aside the high court judgment and its orders. This position is supported
by a government appeal no.275 of 2012 it lost, judgment by Justice Musinga,
W.Ouko, Kiage, M’Inoti & Mohamed (CORAM). ,“…That in essence implies that
we people of Kenya, in adopting, enacting and giving the new constitution to
ourselves and to our future generations ( as the preamble states),we recognized a
constitutional right to secession…..In view of the foregoing, the appellants
contention that the respondents agenda secession is unconstitutional has no basis
in law. The respondents have a right to demand secession but that can be done
within the confines of the constitution as stipulated under Articles 255,256 and
257 of the constitution.”
“ What the government cannot do is to take away a constitutional right of a people
under the guise of preservation of national security. The rights and freedoms in
the bill of rights belong to each individual and are not granted by the state or any
government. See Article 19(3) (a) of the constitution…….people of Kenya are better
off living in unity as one sovereign state we must realize that the unity cannot be
preserved by force, either by government or communities. It is not unconstitutional
for a community to agitate for secession in a constitutional and peaceful manner.
In the Canadian Supreme Court advisory sought by Quibois governor Reference
Secession of Quebec (1998) 2 SCR 217 the eight judges arrived at the same
conclusion as in the Kenyan appeal 275 of 2012 judgment. Despite both the
Canadian constitution and inter national law being silent on secession, a
province or people have a democratic right to desire secession. The rest of the
confederates and government have no right to be indifferent, should recognize
the seceding province majority’s expression through a referendum their desire to
self determination. It is recognized that the British and Kenya government paid
collectively about Bpds 800,000 to buy the Sultan’s sovereignty, in no way were
the democratic and human rights of the coastal indigenous people abrogated,

8
auctioned or sold to either governments in this arrangement they remained
inviolable. There are shared values in a democratic confederation that must be
respected by federal citizens and parent government without exception i.e.
federalism, democracy, rule of law, constitutionalism, social justice and minority
rights. State parties territorial integrity are inviolable and all peoples right to self
determination are both solid principles of international law anchored in the UN
Charter itself, art.1 para 2. However the secession will only be lawful in domestic
or international law if it is negotiated with all stake holders participation the
public, international communities, parent government and private sector,
seceding province but illegal if unilateral or de facto i.e. if pursued by force or
violence by the seceding province. This position is supported by David P Haljan
Lawyer of the Bar of Ontario and Alberta Phd LL researcher in his thesis
“Negotiating Quebec Secession.” It is also supported by ESIL- European Society
of International Law conference paper n.13/2015 Florence 14-15 May 2015 by
Bosko Stankovski a law doctorate researcher entitled “ Is there an Obligation to
Negotiate Secession in International Law? Both advisories/theses came to the
same conclusion reached by the Canadian Supreme Court and therefore the
Kenyan Judges. This advisory Quibois triggered and enabled former Soviet Union
republics and former Yugoslavia provinces to break away and became lawfuly
independent under international law. It is irrefutable that a democratic right has
an equal force like law, because finally the law will be obligated to implement a
democratic will once the seceding province’s majority through a referendum
decides clearly to secede. Violence by federal government or seceding province is
a sign of intolerance to democratic negotiation or process, will severely
undermine a party’s credibility, trust and demonstrates unwillingness to
negotiate before the international community. Russia having realized the
international recognition of this ruling, its force and consequences decided not
to use force against secession of former member republics from the USSR instead
they let them go. Freedom of expression and consent by Coastal communities by
colonial powers to a united Kenya were precluded by well intentioned colonial
pre-independence agreements that were breached by Kenya government, these
were twin wrongs. The Coast’s self determination struggle primarily coalesces
around these twin colonial wrongs and a peoples right to self determination in
law, marginalization is secondary. Is it democratic, lawful, morally responsible
and fair to subject the Coastal province desire to self determination to be
consented through a national referendum and approved by Kenyan parliament
and its 47 county assemblies when the Kenya government culpability and
marginalization for fifty years plus of the region is to primarily blame? I think
not, but we shall be patient, these are serious issues of conflict of interests and
interpretation in law will be decided when the struggle touches base in the legal
process arena. By its diverse nature, reasons and circumstances of the coastal
self determination struggle, it is evident that there are adequate Kenyan domestic
and international legal frame works and mechanisms to address and find a
solution and the Kenya government needed, does not need to panic should
remain principle minded and focused on truth and justice. Common sense
dictates that if it were not for the boundary demarcation by colonial powers of
their colonies and spheres of influence that became future independent state
boundaries, African countries would be at war against each other today.

9
Ugandan claim of Migingo Islands from Kenya fifty years after both countries
became independent, if it were not intelligently handled by Kenya, is best case
scenario of conflict in this respect. The boundaries of a secessionist Coast
province will be determined by international law legal frame work under UN
resolution 1540, lets be cognizant that International Court of Justice has ruled
in round one that it has jurisdiction to hear water territorial boundaries dispute
against Kenya by the Somali government. This not withstanding article 2(5) &
2(6) recognizes international law and any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya
as part of law under the Kenyan constitution.
The Kenya government state law office is conversant with these legitimate issues
and applicable constitutionalism and rule of law, but appears has failed to
substantively advise without bias in principle the state and her organs (a) under
Article 19(2)&(3) Bill of Rights mandates them to protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms to preserve the dignity of individuals and communities
and promote social justice (b) Art. 19 (3) these rights and freedoms belong to
each individual and are not granted by the state (c) Article 21 (1) the state and
all its organs must observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfill these and other
rights and freedoms in the bill of rights. There appears to be a deliberate
attitudinal strategy by the state and its organs to circumvent and disrespect
constitutionalism, rule of law and international law on self determination in this
respect. This is being achieved by deliberately manipulating, and misapplying
the penal code law to frustrate, fish for flimsy excuses to charge agitators of
secession with incitement and breach of art. 3(2), art.5 of the constitution to
negate their rights. This is designed for government to achieve the same objective
of banning CPDM as a criminal gang by applying POCA (Public Order Criminal
Act) in the guise of the penal code. This is even when their actions unless proved
otherwise are within the ambit and limitations of the constitution i.e. under art.
33 freedom of expression, art. 36 freedom of assembly, art. 37 freedom of
Association and art. 38 (c) the right to campaign for a political cause as
determined by the High and Appeal Courts. It will be absolutely compulsory for
the Kenya government in the circumstances to first crash international law and
conventions, articles 255,256 and 257 of the Kenya constitution and the bill of
rights that provide constitutional protection in this respect before crushing the
crusaders of Coastal self determination. The Kenya constitution (2010) unlike
international law is very benevolent, it clearly provides precise mechanisms and
methodologies for its amendment with time frames for referendum which CPDM
is geared to comply with. There is no doubt that there is a legitimate obligation
to negotiate self determination under the Kenya constitution and in international
law. Unless pursued by unorthodox means against articles 255,256,257 of the
constitution and in international law secession, secessionists and its agitation
under the constitution of Kenya are not in any way a crime or unconstitutional.
The Kenya government needs to demonstrate its political will, tolerance, moral
responsibility and resolve to implement, obey the new constitution (2010) on its
part not on pen and paper alone but more importantly in spirit, and avoid being
construed by its law evasive and manipulation to attempting to deny or negate
these same rights and freedoms and instead is seen as fighting citizens it should
protect and ensure they enjoy their rights. It is worth while to remember Jesus
said faith without action is useless so is a constitution, democracy and rule of

10
law not respected. CPDM’s home grown strategy and methods should be a cause
of celebration by Kenya’s and the world at large for doing the government’s job
in art.35 of the constitution to explain the genesis of this crisis to the public and
contribute maintain peace and find a lawful political solution. It ensures
Mombasa as a business hub remains peaceful to avoid economic disruption in
Kenya and East African, Comesa, PTA regions and other foreign interests. This
is backed by our value addition civic education initiatives through our report to
avoid upfront self determination becoming a tragedy of violence, death and
destruction or a curse as has happened else where in Africa. This notion will
blend well, inspire confidence and trust during transition negotiations with world
communities and other interested parties when the Coast finally is set to become
independent. CPDM is not thinking only of the future of her aggrieved Coastal
people but of others at the same time in a composite manner with civility and
decorum larking from government’s side. It is interesting that the government
has lost all cases in the high court and court of appeal in this respect including
our appeal partly for its blatant failure as determined in these judgments to
comply with article 47(1)&(2) of the constitution Fair Administrative Action which
states “ (1) “Every person has a right to administrative action that is expeditious,
efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair” (2) “If a right or fundamental
freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by
administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for
the action.”
The government led by the state law office cannot claim ignorance of the
constitution in this respect and the bill of rights and its obligation to promote
the rule of law and democracy unless it has voluntarily abdicated this
responsibility. Is the government happy in sending the message when it comes
to the Coast Province it does not intend to respect and promote
constitutionalism, democracy and the rule of law, social justice or respect their
fundamental rights as minorities? Not withstanding in 2012 then Prime Minister
Raila Odinga admitted in parliament the historical injustices of the coast were
legitimate and promised a government commission of inquiry in this respect to
no avail to date! It is not fair and democratic for some intellectuals out there to
demean and use vulgar language to insult the intelligence and competency of the
Coastal communities of which I am a part of and attempt to join the government
to dictate who, when, why and how to exercise their constitutional rights. They
are not surrogates neither sons and daughters of a lesser God and as a people
their rights, desires, opinions and choices must be respected by all as long as
they are within the ambit of the law. There is no doubt the success of the coastal
self determination through law courts will have a huge impact on contemporary
African countries, governments and leaders and how they govern and treat their
citizens. This wake up call and the prospect to peaceful and lawful self
determination by marginalized or aggrieved African communities under
international law mechanism as an alternative will counter balance rogue
governance and send a strong message to arrogant and despotic African leaders.
This will help cure their allergy to the rule of law, respect the rights of all people
and democracy cognizant all have an equal opportunity to self determination in
this respect if not respected. They will learn the hard lesson the hard way that
true democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, inclusivity, equity in

11
opportunities and distribution of national resources and respect of social justice
are indispensible if they have to guarantee their countries long term sustainable
unity and peace or risk votality in their countries. The era of an attempted
resurgent monarchial and feudalism in Africa where people and national
resources were a preserve of landlords, rulers and their sycophants will begin to
come to an end assisted by the combination of International Criminal Court and
International Court of Justice jurisdiction replacing biased, ineptitude and
compromised legislature in Africa in over sighting and holding to account the
African executive.
There is a divine dimension to this struggle not known, not by my might or
wisdom but is a God given mission and mandate in this respect to lead, gave
me/coasterians the same promise he gave to the Jews through Moses when the
conquest of the promised land of Canaan begins Exodus 23:20- 33 “ Behold, I
send an angle before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place
that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice, do not reble
against him,for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. But
if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your
enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. When my angle goes before you
and brings you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Canaanites….and I blot
them out…..but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars into
pieces…….I will send my terror before you….and I will make all your enemies turn
their backs to you….which shall drive out ….Canaanites before you…for I will give
the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out…..They
shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me, for if you serve
their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.” From 2012 to now when this mission
was given to me and began the Coast people and the world will be surprised and
gripped with awe what God has sent me and others to do and done himself in
preparing for the liberation and creation of Coast into statehood God gave me
the assurance not to fear anything for he would be with me to the end.He gave me
the courage and has fought my enemies,my legal battles and brought me this far
with great personal sacrifices but made me succeed where others may have
failed.Without him it would be impossible to be alive and come this far today let
alone to completion of the mission. God has special reasons and purpose for doing
this with an assertment that he will liberate the coast the same way he did with
Israel. My court battles are simply the human unnecessary intransigent political
aspects of this liberation process. My role of serving God in this mission is just
one and a beginning, another divine guided global spiritual liberation that will
dwarf the coast mission in terms of dangers, risks and magnitude is round the
corner. I thank, praise and glorify God for everything in this struggle. This
spiritual dimension is huge and a story for another day. It is evidently clear the
Kenya government’s actions have undermined itself upfront and the fragile union
with the coast province. The Lancaster constitution, the relinquishing agreement
by the Sultan and inherited British obligations by the Kenya government were
all part of the solution to concerns by Coasterians recommended by the
Robertson report, but were deliberately and voluntarily trivialized and violated
by the Kenya government. The Kenya constitution inherited constitutionalized
huge tracts of Coast ancestral lands grabbed by Arabs i.e the Mazrui Trust land
Act of 1914 which was a trade in precondition by the Sultan to renounce his

12
sovereignty. The National, devolved county governments, and the National Land
Commission have no power in the circumstances to reposes this land and give it
back to Coastal Africans. The situation is exacerbated by the National Land
Commissions loss of High Court case for its absolute independence instead it
was ruled the commission is answerable to the government. Hope of post
independence grabbed Coast land under the Land Ordinance Act 1908 have
been dealt a death blow as the NLC is answerable to the government where the
powerful land grabbers (feadalists) and their cronies control and exude
impunitive power and influence. The world must be cognizant CPDM’s intentions
and methodologies are clearly in tandem with the obligation for peaceful
settlement of disputes envisaged in Art.2(3) UN chatter and the Declaration of
Principles of International Law. Anybody or institution in the circumstances
willing to help the coast province in kind should come forward in this respect
without a shred of fear or guilt, will not be undermining the sovereignty of Kenya
parse but will be exercising moral responsibility in responding to a peoples
plight, with legitimate and a lawful self determination right and cause they are
pursuing in an internationally recognized civilized manner, all are welcome. A
buttressed Kenyan print and electronic media made no contact for the side of
our story before or after their press accusations in June 2014 and after obtaining
bail pending arrest as explained above until now despite keeping them updated
of developments. This skewed press coverage explains why CPDM’s story, court
battles against or by the Kenyan government and successes are little known by
the world public except those we have reached by correspondence or email. God
bless and may his love and peace be with you all.

13